Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/887,901

METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR IN-POCKET TENDON SHEARING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 17, 2024
Examiner
ALIE, GHASSEM
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Post Tech Manufacturing LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
878 granted / 1275 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1333
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1275 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Drawings 1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first member hingedly coupled to the casing, the second member hingedly coupled to the casing as set forth in claims 4, 6 and 7; and a protrusion of the drive gear operable to engage a channel on an interior of the casing as set forth in claims 5, 7 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It could be argued that the first and second members (216, 218) are pivotally coupled to the casing 202. However, it cannot be seen from the drawings that the first and second members are hindgedly coupled to the casing, since there is no hinge shown that connects the first and second members to the casing. See Fig. 2E of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 3. Claims 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4,”when the cable support mechanism is in a closed position, the cable aperture comprises a contracted shape that holds the cable within the cable aperture; when the cable support mechanism is in an open position, the cable aperture comprises an expanded shape that allows the cable to enter and exit the cable aperture” is unclear. Claim 4 recites that “when the cable support mechanism is in a closed position” the cable aperture has a contracted shape, and “when the cable support mechanism is in an open position” the cable aperture has an expanded shape. However, claim 4 does not clearly identify what structure of the cable support mechanism moves to effect the open and closed positions, nor does it clearly define what constitutes the open position or the closed position of the cable support mechanism. While claim 4 recites first and second members and a spring, the claim does not specify: which components of the cable support mechanism move relative to one another to transition between the open and closed positions, or how the recited open and closed positions of the cable support mechanism are structurally achieved. As a result, it is unclear whether the open and closed positions refer to movement of the first member, the second member, the cable aperture, or the cable support mechanism as a whole. Accordingly, the scope of claim 4 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, rendering claim 4 indefinite. Claim 11 similarly recites that the “cable support mechanism is in a closed position” and an “open position,” and further describes functional results associated with those positions. However, claim 11 fails to identify any structural components that define or establish the open position or the closed position of the cable support mechanism. Claim 11 does not clearly recite: how the cable support mechanism transitions between the open and closed positions, or which elements of the cable support mechanism are responsible for creating those positions. Because the claim relies on open and closed positions to define the functional operation of the cable support mechanism without clearly associating those positions with specific structural features, the boundaries of the claimed invention are unclear. Claim 18 recites that the cable support mechanism has an open position and a closed position, and that a spring is configured to maintain the cable support mechanism in the closed position. However, claim 18 does not clearly define what structural arrangement constitutes the closed position or the open position of the cable support mechanism, nor does it clearly identify which components move to form those positions. Although claim 18 recites first and second members and a spring, the claim does not specify: whether the first member and second member move relative to each other, whether the cable aperture itself changes shape due to movement of the members, or how the spring cooperates with the members to define the open and closed positions. Accordingly, it is unclear what structural configuration corresponds to the open position and the closed position of the cable support mechanism. Because the scope of the claimed invention depends on these undefined positional states, claim 18 fails to define the invention with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite. Additionally, claims 4, 11, and 18 recite a casing and a cable groove of the casing, and further recite that structural elements of the cable support mechanism (e.g., first and second members) are coupled to, or cooperate with, the casing and the cable groove. However, the claims do not clearly specify whether the casing is: a structural component of the claimed cable support mechanism; a component of the cable shearing system referenced in the preamble; or an external device with which the cable support mechanism merely interacts. Because the casing is relied upon to define the structure and operation of the claimed cable support mechanism ,including guiding the cable via the cable groove and providing a mounting structure for the first and second members, the failure to identify whether the casing is part of the claimed invention renders the scope of the claims unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 5. Claims 4-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorkin (2021/0237142 A1). Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, as best understood, Sorkin teaches a cable support mechanism 70 (Fig. 6) for removably coupling a cable shearing system to a cable, the cable support mechanism 70 comprising: PNG media_image1.png 7 3 media_image1.png Greyscale a cable aperture 92 (defined by the combination of grooves of both left and right clamp arms 53a, 53b; Figs. 6-7) sized to at least partially circumscribe the cable; a first member (53a) hingedly coupled to a casing (1, 32), the first member comprising: a first shape 88 that forms a first portion of the cable aperture; and a first sloped side (84, 86; see annotated Fig. 6 below) that is sloped (as can be seen in Fig. 6) towards the first shape 88 and is configured to guide the cable from a cable groove 103 of the casing (1, 32) into the cable aperture; a second member (53b) hingedly coupled to the casing, the second member comprising: a second shape 88 that forms a second portion of the cable aperture 92; and a second sloped side (84, 86; see annotated Fig. 6 below) side that is sloped towards the second shape 88 and is configured to guide the cable from the cable groove into the cable aperture; and a spring 31 operably coupled to one or both of the first member (53a) and the second member (53b) and configured to mediate movements of one or both of the first member and the second member; wherein: when the cable support mechanism is in a closed position, the cable aperture comprises a contracted shape that holds the cable within the cable aperture; when the cable support mechanism is in an open position, the cable aperture comprises an expanded shape that allows the cable to enter and exit the cable aperture; and the spring 31 is configured to maintain the cable support mechanism in the closed position (paragraphs [0039] and [0040]). See Figs. 1-7 in Sorkin. Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that cable aperture 92 is circular in shape (Fig. 7). Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the first member is hingedly (via sleeves 78 and pivoting rod 74; Fig. 6) coupled to the casing (1, 32) on a first side (as being located on one side of the cable groove) of the cable groove of the casing; and the second member is hinged coupled to the casing on a second side (as being located on the other side of the cable groove) of the cable groove. Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable support mechanism 70 is configured to latch onto the cable in response to the cable being forced upward through the cable groove and into the cable aperture 92. Regarding claims 8, 15, and 22, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable support mechanism is configured to move from the closed position to the open position in response to a force being applied to one or both of the first sloped side of the first member and the second sloped side of the second member. PNG media_image2.png 8 5 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claims 9, 16, and 23, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including a first end of the spring 31 is coupled to the first member (53a) and a second end of the spring 31 is coupled to the second member (53b). See Fig. 6 in Sorkin. Regarding claims 10 and 17, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable aperture 92 is aligned with the cable groove. PNG media_image3.png 959 846 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. To the degree that it could be argued Sorkin does explicitly teach that the first and second members are separately hingedly coupled to the casing on both sides of the cable groove, the rejection below is applied. 7. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorkin in view of Schmode (7,503,119 B2). Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Sorkin teaches that the first member (53a) is hinged and located one side of the cable groove and the second member (53b) is hinged and located on the other side of the cable groove. It could be argued that Sorkin does not explicitly teach that the first and second members are separately hingedly coupled to the casing on both sides of the cable groove. However, Schmode teaches this feature. Specifically, Schmode discloses a cable cutter in which a first member (1a) is hingedly coupled to a casing (2) on a first side of a cable groove (18) via a pivoting rod (3a) and spring (19), and a second member (1b) is hingedly coupled to the casing on a second, opposite side of the cable groove via a pivoting rod (3b). See Schmode, Figures 1-7. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sorkin to include separate pivoting rods on both sides of the cable groove as taught by Schmode, because the pivoting mechanisms of Sorkin and Schmode are recognized equivalents that perform the same function, namely, pivotally biasing the first and second members toward one another into a closed position. To the degree that it could be argued Sorkin does explicitly teach that the sloped sides (84, 86) are completely sloped, the rejection below is applied. 8. Claims 4-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorkin in view of Thorson et al. (8,266,991 B2), hereinafter Thorson. Regarding claims 4 and 11, as best understood, Sorkin teaches a cable support mechanism 70 (Fig. 6) for removably coupling a cable shearing system to a cable, the cable support mechanism 70 comprising: PNG media_image1.png 7 3 media_image1.png Greyscale a cable aperture 92 (defined by the combination of grooves of both left and right clamp arms 53a, 53b; Figs. 6-7) sized to at least partially circumscribe the cable; a first member (53a) hingedly coupled to a casing (1, 32), the first member comprising: a first shape 88 that forms a first portion of the cable aperture; and a first sloped side (84, 86; see annotated Fig. 6 below) that is sloped (as can be seen in Fig. 6) towards the first shape 88 and is configured to guide the cable from a cable groove 103 of the casing (1, 32) into the cable aperture; a second member (53b) hingedly coupled to the casing, the second member comprising: a second shape 88 that forms a second portion of the cable aperture 92; and a second sloped side (84, 86; see annotated Fig. 6 below) side that is sloped towards the second shape 88 and is configured to guide the cable from the cable groove into the cable aperture; and a spring 31 operably coupled to one or both of the first member (53a) and the second member (53b) and configured to mediate movements of one or both of the first member and the second member; wherein: when the cable support mechanism is in a closed position, the cable aperture comprises a contracted shape that holds the cable within the cable aperture; when the cable support mechanism is in an open position, the cable aperture comprises an expanded shape that allows the cable to enter and exit the cable aperture; and the spring 31 is configured to maintain the cable support mechanism in the closed position (paragraphs [0039] and [0040]). See Figs. 1-7 in Sorkin. It could be argued that the first and second sloped sides are not completely sloped towards their respective first and second shapes that formed the aperture. However, Thorson teaches a cable support mechanism including a first member 175 having a sloped side 305 which is sloped towards a first shape for forming a part of an aperture 185; and a second member 180 including a second sloped side 320 (Fig. 7A) which is sloped towards a second shaped for forming the other part of the aperture 185. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of Sorkin’s sloped sides to have completely inclined surfaces, as taught by Thorson, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Regarding claims 5, and 19, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that cable aperture 92 is circular in shape (Fig. 7). Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the first member is hingedly (via sleeves 78 and pivoting rod 74; Fig. 6) coupled to the casing (1, 32) on a first side (as being located on one side of the cable groove) of the cable groove of the casing; and the second member is hinged coupled to the casing on a second side (as being located on the other side of the cable groove) of the cable groove. Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable support mechanism 70 is configured to latch onto the cable in response to the cable being forced upward through the cable groove and into the cable aperture 92. Regarding claims 8 and 15, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable support mechanism is configured to move from the closed position to the open position in response to a force being applied to one or both of the first sloped side of the first member and the second sloped side of the second member. PNG media_image2.png 8 5 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claims 9 and 16, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including a first end of the spring 31 is coupled to the first member (53a) and a second end of the spring 31 is coupled to the second member (53b). See Fig. 6 in Sorkin. Regarding claims 10 and 17, Sorkin teaches everything noted above including that the cable aperture 92 is aligned with the cable groove. To the degree that it could be argued Sorkin does explicitly teach that the first and second members are separately hingedly coupled to the casing on both sides of the cable groove, the rejection below is applied. 9. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorkin in view of Thorson and in further view of Schmode. Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sorkin teaches that the first member (53a) is hinged and located one side of the cable groove and the second member (53b) is hinged and located on the other side of the cable groove. It could be argued that Sorkin does not explicitly teach that the first and second members are separately hingedly coupled to the casing on both sides of the cable groove. However, Schmode teaches this feature. Specifically, Schmode discloses a cable cutter in which a first member (1a) is hingedly coupled to a casing (2) on a first side of a cable groove (18) via a pivoting rod (3a) and spring (19), and a second member (1b) is hingedly coupled to the casing on a second, opposite side of the cable groove via a pivoting rod (3b). See Schmode, Figures 1-7. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sorkin’s cable support mechanism, as modified by Thorson, to include separate pivoting rods on both sides of the cable groove as taught by Schmode, because the pivoting mechanisms of Sorkin and Schmode are recognized equivalents that perform the same function, namely, pivotally biasing the first and second members toward one another into a closed position. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Versleegers (10,180,540 B2) and Jobe (2,850,926) teach a cable support mechanism. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 February 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 17, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592452
SEPARATOR CUTTING DEVICE AND SEPARATOR CUTTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589518
HAND-HELD PLANING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583139
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SLICING FILM MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583135
CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12557839
CIGAR CUTTING DEVICE AND METHODS OF CUTTING CIGARS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1275 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month